Got an interesting note from an occasional correspondent:
I’m familiar with the concept of eros as a consuming fire, as well as the ugly side of “love” that can become mostly obsession and filling the lover’s needs more than the “lovee’s” needs. And I even have some passing familiarity with love in a violent sense–like the “kiss of the blade.” I also think of the psychological and philosophical thinking regarding the possibility that intense emotions like love/passion and violence are much closer to each other than we would like to think. How close they ACTUALLY are is something I can only guess at, believing I have never experienced the kind of love it must refer to.
I was reminded of that when I once again (Rhythms XXVI) read you referring to a targeted bomb/missile’s
interaction with its target in the same language you have often used (though probably not this strongly
before).I understand your use of metaphors and the underlying meanings I think you intend to convey. But the language and metaphors you allude to in this context have always disturbed me. I’ve been trying to figure out why, and I sense there is much I don’t understand.
(Perhaps there are) subltleties I am not catching.
“In Rhythms XXVI,” you wrote: “They [pilots] would not be required to fall in love with it, to in fact, love it to death.”
“…the bomb would seek a mate, a pairing, a union devoutly to be wished. In that union the bomb would find its true meaning, and in finding that meaning, perish utterly, taking with it the object of its desire. The bomb itself was more than love: It was consumption.”
You allude to similar things in your “IP to Target” post.
I guess my question is: Am I reading too much into your words? Is this a time-worn (almost cliche) way of referring to this topic, one that has lost its emotional impact among those familiar with it? Or are there truly deep parallels here?
As I said, a fascinating (to me) question, full of psychological depth. I hope my reader will not fault me if I share his letter here, as well as my response:
(Y)ou are very near the mark… : There is much tightly constrained emotion in the doing of what we do, these are matters of the most serious import. Our business, at the end of the day, is organized violence, killing or being killed. We can wrap it up in the cloth of duty, honor and country (which are no less true even for our having thus used them) but we cannot escape the naked truth beneath, that all war is a kind of savagery.
A pilot does learn to fall in love with his target, or at least something very similar to the the obsessive sense of eros, evoking passions which, like fire and gunpowder, consume themselves in their first passionate embrace. Erotic love, all by itself and without deeper emotional attachment, is little more than obsession, a kind of slavery to our baser instincts and the expression of our desire to prevail, to satisfy our own needs, whether they be physical or psychological. Eros when combined with phileo can perhaps make a dialectic synthesis which reaches to the god-like plain of agape, but by itself eros is ignoble and destructive.
Which is as it must be, for during war or acts of war, destruction is called for, and many of its associated actions (I do not say all – phileo does come into play in many noble self-sacrifices) may be objectively qualified as ignoble. The mission itself is our expression of our rude will to overcome, to prevail, and the weapon is an extension of our will for the target itself. It is both the proxy for our obsession and its climax: At the union of target and weapon our will is satisfied and our desire is consummated. We are left with both a kind of celebratory exultation, and a kind of regret – it is over, it is done, it is gone. We regret that it is over because we cannot *feel* it again, at least not right away. Only later when we fall asleep do we perhaps attempt to tally the human cost of what we have done, what we were compelled to do, less from any sense of external expectation than from a deep desire to succeed.
There are many terrible things about war. Among the worst of them are the fact that a man might die for his country. Not far behind that fact is that he might kill for it. I say this plainly knowing that both are all too often necessary.
Take care,
Lex
Your response was extremely eloquent and profound, so I’m glad to see you’ve posted it here. Thanks for giving the rest of us a peek inside, and a lot to think about.
Consuming Fires: Eros and Bombing
Inspired by an email from a reader, Lex has written a short but very profound essay on love and war, and where the two intersect. It’s definitely one of his most thought-provoking and eloquent offerings, worthy of the widest distribution.
OK, that was a pretty deep exchange. But, what I want to know is more mundane. Is that metaphor widely used among your cohort or is it a unique expression of your own?
BTW I’ve read almost every entry. Especially love the stuff that’s “inside baseball”.
Well, thanks Phil, I’m glad you’ve enjoyed most of it. As for whether that metaphor is widely used, I’ve known a few pilots who would use the term, “falling in love” with their target as a way of emphasizing the necessity of target study for the purpose of target acquisition (always one of the most significiant challenges pre-GPS).
And as for the rest of the metaphor? Well, there I’m speaking only for myself. Generally, we don’t talk that way among ourselves.
Wow, that’s deep stuff. Maybe I’m reading your writing too much on the surface, taking your hard rung words for granted.
Oh well, I’m enjoying the tales and learning, so I guess I’m getting my money’s worth.
Deep and enjoyable.
Much for thought here, but my gut instinct tells me that such lofty metaphors may be due to the physical isolation — enclosed cockpit, altitude, relative speed differential — of the attack pilot from his target.
In my rotary-wing world, we experience a greater degree of interpersonal activity with the opposition; both participants are simultaneously target and shooter. It’s a bit difficult to conjure up erotic similes when you’ve just seen Lead break in half from an RPG hit or you’ve watched the folks you opened up on disintegrate into pink mist fifty feet in front of you. Not that there’s no emotion attached to all this, but I don’t see that anger, fear and sorrow would contribute much to a loving relationship.
‘course, it could be that it’s just me…
scratch, scratch….I dunno
re- “Eros when combined with phileo can perhaps make a dialetic synthesis which reaches to the god-like plain of agape, but by itself eros is ignoble and destructive.”
There are no stupid questions, right? But..
Are you making an art out of a science (ballistics) or vice versa? Or are you explaining “be the bull”, “may the force be with you” or “pause-pickle-pull”? Is it that split second as the swinging muzzle reaches the dove?
Which is all sort of funny when you consider that the entire JDAM link to do the above is comprised of SW code written to spec by bespeckled EE’s and CS grads! Digital and clinical! Hard to get target fixation w/JDAM I’ll reckon.
B2
Good stuff. Take a read through G.K. Chesterton’s “The Last Hero” for another warrior who knew what it is to love the target to death.
Bill – I suspect you’re right in a lot of ways: Rotary-wing combat is more personal than fixed-wing. But I think it’s also generally (although not by any means always) more reactive as well. Fixed wing strikes (apart from CAS and maybe BAI or TST) tend to be more deliberative from planning through execution – you get to know your target’s every feature intimately before ever you see it in the cross-hairs.
B2 – I guess the parallel my occasional correspondent and I are evoking has less to do with the moment of destruction than with the act leading up to it. It is a passion for destruction in other words, rather than a destructive passion.
Thanks for writing, IJ and Jim – pleased to have been of service
Enjoyed most of it? No, I think maybe I enjoyed all of it. Some stuff more than others is all. I check the site every day for new content just like your other loyal reader
Ever think of writing a novel ala Tom Clancy? Think you might have the right stuff.
Kind words again, Phil, head of the class
I did actually look into writing a book once, about a dozen years, subsequent to a rather nasty spill on my motorcycle, and awarded 30 days of convalescent leave. Nothing but time on my hands, and being who I am, I first bought a book on how to write a book (short version: Write – Long version: Write, and die trying to find a publisher) and went merrily to work.
Before discovering that it’s actually rather hard. Damn hard, actually. Fun thing about the blog though is that I get to practice writing, while both of you useful readers end up being my editors and market survey!
For free!
Lex,
Write the book. You CAN do it.
bc